Illinois Supreme Court· 2/7/2008

People v. Coleman

Citations

882 N.E.2d 1025
227 Ill. 2d 426
317 Ill. Dec. 869
2008 Ill. LEXIS 279

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

reviewing suppression of evidence issue where defendant argued the same issue under a different theory before the trial court and also raised it in a posttrial motion
“to preserve an issue for appellate review, a defendant must both object at trial and present the same issue in a written posttrial motion” (emphasis added)
“[T]o preserve an issue for appellate review, a defendant must both object at trial and present the same issue in a written posttrial motion”
“Congress intended to preempt this area, but specifically permitted concurrent state regulation” in that “states may adopt standards more stringent than those in Title III”
“[W]hen a court interprets a statute and the legislature does not amend it ***, we presume that the legislature has acquiesced in the court’s understanding of legislative intent.”
“[W]hen a court interprets a statute and the legislature does not amend it ***, we presume that the legislature has acquiesced in the court’s understanding of legislative intent.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Fitzgerald

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

24 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

28 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Other cases with this name

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.